[Sinuhe]

It’s rather interesting to watch the_logos employing every known dirty trick in the debate technique to defend his right to present his game in a misleading way on this list.

So far we have seen the following techniques, all well know to politicians and lobbyists:
1. Avoiding the issue by ignoring certain uncomfortable facts and pretending they don’t exist
2. Applying pressure on the list owner by veiled threats of withdrawing financial support if the change should get implemented
3. Making statements on behalf of the list owner (who’s opinion has yet to be heard)
4. Drowning the issue by diverting the discussion in other directions and enlisting support from followers (generally known as SPAM)
5. Obscuring the issue, by turning it into a haggling over semantics
6. Distorting the issue by suggesting ridiculous and/or downgrading alternatives to the proposed definitions
7. Degrading the opposition by declaring them a minority, without presenting any valid proof of representing a majority himself.
8. Declaring the change unnecessary, by claiming that the system works well as it is, so there is no need for any changes

What will it be next? Discrediting specific posters by downgrading or patronising statements about themselves or their games? (He has been known to do that in the past).

I find point 8 on the list above particularly ludicrous. By the same logic every progress and improvement in this world could be prevented.

The following facts remain:

A substantial number of posters support the proposition made by Valg, DonFry and others. We think that this would be a substantial improvement to the search engine, and that it would be an easy task to find valid definitions for every game on the list. It’s pretty safe to also assume that the change, if implemented, would be appreciated by a majority of the people that currently use the list to search for a mud to play (including the ones in search of a play-for-perks game).

We also think that we have the same right as the_logos to prose changes and get those propositions listened to and discussed.

What we ask from the readers of the thread is that you try to see through the smokescreens, regard the proposition in an unbiased way, and draw your own conclusions. I would also suggest that you think a bit extra about what motives the_logos may have for opposing a proposition that logic should tell you is a good one.

This issue is not a new one. It keeps popping up from time to time on this and other discussion boards, which indicates at least that there is a substantial interest for the change. The discussion, in one form or another will go on until there is a decision from Synozeer in one direction or the other, preferably also with a logic explanation to why the decision was made.

[Valg]

When we recently proposed changing the rules for voting, didn't it begin with the opinion of a few forum voters? You were active in that-- you even proposed language. So was I, both on these forums and with a private email to Synozeer.

Why were you OK with changing those rules but not this one? Surely, in the former case, you did not carefully obtain the opinion of each of TMS's thousands of users to ascertain that your suggestion was the majority opinion. Would it have been right for someone to deride you and I as an insignificant minority then?

Or would it have beeen proper for them to discuss the issue at hand, instead of dodging it and claiming to speak for thousands of others? Why does the opinion of forum users only count when it agrees with you?

You're a lot more transparent than you'd like to believe, Matt.

[The_Disciple]

Ultimately, in a free market, quality rises to the top. There are a thousand people who think they can download a stock MUD codebase. Sooner or later, there's going to be at least one person who looks at this site and thinks: I could do most of the cool things TMS does, but add easy/clear searching options for the degrees of free vs. pay, RP enforcement, PK permissiveness, theme, etc.* (This someone will not be me.) If it comes to that point, I have to believe that the traffic will go where the quality is.

*No, such a list would not include such ridiculous qualifications as whether a given game has geomancers or not. Pretending that you can't tell the difference between the things a player might legitimately care about and the things they won't degrades both you and us.

[Galleus]

It would be helpful to your cause to provide arguments that actually address the issues Matt has brought up. When he offered the Professional v. Amateur/Hobbyist standard as a poor method of distinction, many of you jumped on him for implying that they were somehow inferior because they weren't commercial. Oddly enough, that was entirely his point. Such subjective language as "professional" or "amateur" is as loaded with potentially confusing alternate meanings as the word "free" which, you may recall, is the entire premise of this thread.

It may serve your purposes to attack Matt as a person rather than his arguments, but I imagine it does little to affect the considerations of that silent majority who, as of yet and by all indications, feels no need to support a change of any kind.

Matt has repeatedly stated that he would support a classification system as has been suggested, if the classifications were specific enough so as to treat with equal concern the differences between types of commercial MUDs as it does between hobbyist MUDs and commercial MUDs. If the noble intent of the esteemed forum patrons that grace this thread is marked true, working towards such a concept should not be out of reach, and, I imagine, would go a long way towards dispelling the unfortunate image cast upon them by what has so far been an ill-managed campaign to discredit a large part of their own community.

[Valg]

Accurate disclosure and labeling of games. TMS is a better resource for MUD players if it provides that information than if it doesn't. More information is more gooder.

Any claims of "discrimination because someone's figured out how to make money" are based on nothing I've said. I'm not some "money is bad" commune-dweller. For example, I've had nothing but positive things to say in these threads about Threshold's business model (which has a mandatory fee as well as a pay-for-perks system), because they accurately label it for what it is.

I've also stated up front that I have a vested interest in this: I help run a 100% free game. Currently, TMS only allows games to self-identify as "Pay To Play" or the absence thereof. That means a lot of commercial games get lumped in with our nonprofit enterprise, which dilutes the effectiveness of us telling people we're "free". IRE's business model is very different from ours, but TMS doesn't display that information.

We'd like a system that tells players the truth: Playing some games doesn't involve money (Carrion Fields). Playing other games often involves money (IRE). Playing still other games always involves money (Threshold).

[Valg]

How do you know that a silent majority of TMS's thousands of users agree with you and Matt?  Please elaborate.

Specifically, expand on what the purpose of the forums are if you assume anyone who doesn't post on a thread disagrees with it.

[Dunestalker]

I agree that this would be a good change. I also think that it does appear very weak that Logos is so opposed to the change and can't just admit the true reasoning why. It is very obvious -why- he is opposing it. There is only one logical answer.

Like someone else said, it is a typical sales technique. Get them hooked and then reveal the catch.

Me personally, I can't afford to spend extra money on games and I like to play a game where the playing field is equal. As one who cannot spend the extra money, playing a "payforperks" game isn't a level playing field for me. Sure, I can earn all the same things (supposedly) through hard work. But IMO, it's unfair to me that others can get the same simply because they have the money to spend RL. I would like to know before I get into a game and "get hooked" if that is the type of environment I'm getting into so that I can continue looking for one more suitable. Since I cannot afford to buy my way I'd rather be playing a game where noone can.
I know for certain that there are many others who feel this way.

[Galleus]

I'm not saying they do agree with us at all. I'm simply saying that, if they felt a change was in order, it's very easy for them to post in support of that, while if they saw no reason for a change, they'd have no reason to bother either way. Given that most people aren't clamoring for a change, it stands to reason that there isn't any particularly strong community sentiment against the way things are currently being handled.

The purpose of the forum is to allow for discussion. I think that's happened and that the forum has served well in this respect.

[Valg]

So, by that logic, no one has ever wanted change from TMS, because I've never seen a thread with posts from thousands of its users. TMS was born perfect from the womb, I guess.

Except when enough people complained about IRE abusing the voting rules, and change happened. Except when enough people complained about Medievia abusing the voting rules, which led to Medievia eventually being shown the door. In the latter case, you and the_logos used these forums as part of your attempt to have change made. Where was the "consensus of thousands" then?

These threads have been unusually active for TMS, and they involve a lot of different participants. If anything, there's glaring evidence that it's a hot button issue for the community here. People do have strong opinions about it, which is exactly the situation where Synozeer should look into a change.

I recognize you can't publically disagree with the_logos, because you're an employee of IRE/Aetolia. But you could at least avoid parroting his weakest points.

[the_logos]

I say there is no evidence you are anything but a minority. If you have it, use it. Otherwise, you're just engaging in conjecture.

How many times do you need something repeated to you? As I've stated, at least twice previously, my point is that I don't feel that accurately describes the whole of our business model any more than "amateur" accurately describes the whole of Carrion Fields, for instance.

--matt

[the_logos]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'count.' What counts is what Adam listens to.

--matt

[the_logos]

I'm just quoting what you said to avoid repeating it. Kavir understood the analogy quite well and agreed that it is entirely accurate, and he and I rarely agree on anything.. It's weird that some of the others seem to be unable to get their heads around it.

Before anyone else is tempted to ask, for the millionth time, why I'm opposed to a label like, "free to play, pay for perks" go ahead and read the quoted post above.

As I've stated over and over (I seriously don't think some of the posters here actually read the posts before launching into flames), I have no objection to being labeled -fully- and accurately. "pay for perks" is not a sufficient description anymore than "amateur" is a sufficient description for Carrion Fields. That's the last time I repeat myself, as if you can't be bothered to read my posts, stop asking me the question I already answered.

--matt

[the_logos]

It'd sure be nice to gather some knowledge regarding a subject before attacking someone over it. Galleus is not and has never been an employee of IRE or Aetolia.
--matt

[Valg]

I did.  He appears on Aetolia's as a god there.  He also posts ads for Aetolia.

Maybe he's volunteer staff as opposed to paid staff, but it doesn't mean he's free to contradict you in a public forum, which is my point.

[the_logos]

Sinhue wrote:
I'm not going to respond to your ridiculous list, but note that this was a thread -I- started, about the meaning of the word free. The people agitating for changes involving optional payments and all sorts of database listing schemes are the ones that diverted the discussion, and now YOU are diverting the discussion even further, into a "discussion" (or flame as most people would call what you wrote) of a single poster. Talk about completely off-topic.

[the_logos]

He's a volunteer staff member. And of course he's free to contradict me. Given that you have little to no knowledge of how IRE works internally, your repeated assertions about it are odd. Wouldn't it be better to ask first?

--matt

[Shao_Long]

the logos:

how does "pay for perks" does not describe the "business model" of your games? and if you feel so strongly about this issue, what WOULD describe it properly? obviously "completely free" is not true. As you claim, "pay for perks" or "pay to advance" is not true either. So what is it, then?

[the_logos]

I answered that already, pages earlier in the thread. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over.

--matt

[The_Disciple]

I'll be straight with you, man. On this particular thread/topic (not all topics, I often think you have interesting points to bring to a discussion) there's been a lot of "Hey, look over there!" and "Let me answer that point by talking about something completely irrelevant instead."

I wouldn't think asking you would get a straight answer, so why bother? Case in point, you imply that Valg is some kind of crackhead for thinking Galleus has anything to do with you and yours, when that's basically true. If you had started with the response of: not employee, but works for us as a volunteer you'd have more credibility there.

God willing, at some point Synozeer will lay out his own opinions and the thread will die so we can talk about something else again.

[Traveler]

So why not mail him?